The Bible And Slavery

[Politesse]

If the phrase, "There is neither slave nor free," is a condemnation of slavery, then of what is "There is neither Jew nor Greek" a condemnation?

If "There is neither slave nor free" is meant to mean, "No one should be a slave nor a slave owner," then what are we to make of "There is neither male nor female"?

If people wish to read into that verse that there should be no legal discrimination on the basis of race or sex either, I think that's a valid reading and one that I would entirely support.

 

[DBT]

Evangelist? Where did that come from? I simply asked for evidence that the bible condemns slavery....how is that 'evangelism?'

Evangelicalism, not Evangelism. You're peddling their regressive and ignorant views on what the Bible contains and how it ought to be read by the modern reader, whether intentionally or not.

That is better as far as implications go, but it doesn't specifically condemn slavery. A slave owner can show kindness and love toward his slaves, yet still own them because they have their station in life and he has his. The practice of slavery is not disowned....

That's a fat load of horse shit. Who wants to be ""loved" like a slave owner loves their possessions? The verse doesn't say "Show superficial love toward your possessions." It says, treat others as you would be yourself like to be treated. Are you keen to be next up on the auction block, as long as you get a "nice owner"? These disgusting Victorian Era apologetics still get brought up whenever slavery is under discussion, but I have no tolerance or patience for it. The ownership of human beings is a repugnant, unforgiveable practice. The Bible does not need to spell out, "Stop doing slavery", for this to be true. The Bible's actual moral teachings make no sense unless it is true.

I'm 'peddling' nothing. I simply asked you for evidence that the bible condemns slavery, which you were suggesting is the case. The verses that you quoted do not condemn slavery, they express the principle that all are 'one in Christ,' be they male, female, Jew or Greek, etc, which says nothing about earthly station or status.

 

[Politesse]

Evangelicalism, not Evangelism. You're peddling their regressive and ignorant views on what the Bible contains and how it ought to be read by the modern reader, whether intentionally or not.



That's a fat load of horse shit. Who wants to be ""loved" like a slave owner loves their possessions? The verse doesn't say "Show superficial love toward your possessions." It says, treat others as you would be yourself like to be treated. Are you keen to be next up on the auction block, as long as you get a "nice owner"? These disgusting Victorian Era apologetics still get brought up whenever slavery is under discussion, but I have no tolerance or patience for it. The ownership of human beings is a repugnant, unforgiveable practice. The Bible does not need to spell out, "Stop doing slavery", for this to be true. The Bible's actual moral teachings make no sense unless it is true.

I'm 'peddling' nothing. I simply asked you for evidence that the bible condemns slavery, which you were suggesting is the case. The verses that you quoted do not condemn slavery, they express the principle that all are 'one in Christ,' be they male, female, Jew or Greek, etc, which says nothing about earthly station or status.

I didn't claim that the Bible explicitly condemns slavery. I acknowledge that arguments have been made both for and against slavery with Biblical evidence in support, all of it a question of interpretation and inference since the matter is never addressed directly. I think the pro-slavery argument is incoherent with the basic principles of the faith, as discussed. Unless you can explain why you wish to be sold as a commodity, no one else has a right to enslave you and call themselves a Christian. I notice you are focusing on minor points to avoid addressing the heart of the matter. Neither you nor your conservative allies can explain how a Christian could possibly justify this practice without engaging in hypocrisy.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

see any participation in slave markets/prisons etc as an abject failure of the more important Christian principle of universal and unequivocal love for one's neighbor.

That is certainly a guiding proposition for some, christian and not, but it is hardly an inevitable consequence of calling oneself christian. Christians are human beings who call themselves christian. Stop. Christianity is what christians do. Stop. Not all christians abide by 'universal and unequivocal love for one's neighbor.' Stop. Christians who do not so abide are still christians. Stop.

I was raised in a catholic household and remember that ponderous thing called the catechism. I don't know what it says about slavery. Do you? Are you aware of any christian laws about slavery? There are a lot of secular laws about slavery, and I don't know anyone who owns slaves. I do know a lot of racists who are devout christians.

 

[Politesse]

see any participation in slave markets/prisons etc as an abject failure of the more important Christian principle of universal and unequivocal love for one's neighbor.

That is certainly a guiding proposition for some, christian and not, but it is hardly an inevitable consequence of calling oneself christian. Christians are human beings who call themselves christian. Stop. Christianity is what christians do. Stop. Not all christians abide by 'universal and unequivocal love for one's neighbor.' Stop. Christians who do not so abide are still christians. Stop.

I was raised in a catholic household and remember that ponderous thing called the catechism. I don't know what it says about slavery. Do you? Are you aware of any christian laws about slavery? There are a lot of secular laws about slavery, and I don't know anyone who owns slaves. I do know a lot of racists who are devout christians.

I didn't say people who disagree with me aren't Christians. I said that they are wrong.

Obviously I am aware of the pro-slavery movement within Christianity, I've been complaining about it for the last ten posts.

As for the Catechism, it is much more explicit on this topic. I direct you to 3.1.1.3.i:

Article 3

MAN'S FREEDOM

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.

During the centuries of the Transatlantic slave trade, Catholic slave owners often directly forbade their slaves from learning written Spanish/French/Latin or attaining formal religious instruction for this very reason; they were terrified that learning the catechism directly would lead to slave revolts.

 

[DBT]

Neither you nor your conservative allies can explain how a Christian could possibly justify this practice without engaging in hypocrisy.

Labels such as 'conservative' are not related to the issue. The problem is that the bible does not unequivocally denounce slavery, that there are verses stating that slaves should obey their master, which clearly does not condemn the practice. The bible doesn't say or even suggest that ''slavery is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.'' You are left with inference: that love would not permit slavery.

 

[Politesse]

Neither you nor your conservative allies can explain how a Christian could possibly justify this practice without engaging in hypocrisy.

Labels such as 'conservative' are not related to the issue. The problem is that the bible does not unequivocally denounce slavery, that there are verses stating that slaves should obey their master, which clearly does not condemn the practice. The bible doesn't say or even suggest that ''slavery is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.'' You are left with inference: that love would not permit slavery.

An inference against which you have no logical, let alone moral, rejoinder.

 

[Rhea]

Neither you nor your conservative allies can explain how a Christian could possibly justify this practice without engaging in hypocrisy.

Labels such as 'conservative' are not related to the issue. The problem is that the bible does not unequivocally denounce slavery, that there are verses stating that slaves should obey their master, which clearly does not condemn the practice. The bible doesn't say or even suggest that ''slavery is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.'' You are left with inference: that love would not permit slavery.

An inference against which you have no logical, let alone moral, rejoinder.

Well, except that Christianity does not condemn slavery, people who are moral outside of Christianity do.
You seem to be proving the case that Christianity provides no good - the good only comes from people who would be good without it anyway.

Christianity provides no instruction to eschew slavery. Christianity is not a tool to remove slavery or racism. There are good people who try to hold up Christianity as their guidance, but that is only from their personal “interpretation” not from your God’s clarity on the issue.

 

[J842P]

Evangelist? Where did that come from? I simply asked for evidence that the bible condemns slavery....how is that 'evangelism?'

Evangelicalism, not Evangelism. You're peddling their regressive and ignorant views on what the Bible contains and how it ought to be read by the modern reader, whether intentionally or not.

That is better as far as implications go, but it doesn't specifically condemn slavery. A slave owner can show kindness and love toward his slaves, yet still own them because they have their station in life and he has his. The practice of slavery is not disowned....

That's a fat load of horse shit. Who wants to be ""loved" like a slave owner loves their possessions? The verse doesn't say "Show superficial love toward your possessions." It says, treat others as you would be yourself like to be treated. Are you keen to be next up on the auction block, as long as you get a "nice owner"? These disgusting Victorian Era apologetics still get brought up whenever slavery is under discussion, but I have no tolerance or patience for it. The ownership of human beings is a repugnant, unforgiveable practice. The Bible does not need to spell out, "Stop doing slavery", for this to be true. The Bible's actual moral teachings make no sense unless it is true.

This sort of reminds me of the Lewis Trilemma.

I am perfectly willing to concede that the Bible's moral teachings don't make a whole lot of sense. Internally, or otherwise.

Which isn't surprising, because Christianity is a very strange mish-mash of ideas. It was born out of an already strange evolution of Jewish religion that by the time of Jesus had been transformed by over half a millennium of trauma and grappling with political calamities, and trying to rationalize and reconcile this with the remnants of a bronze-age Yahwism, which itself had transformed from a respectable (albeit grim) monolatristic religion to a rather gauche monotheistic one.

So, to me the moral teachings of Jesus don't make much sense outside of the apocalyptic / messianic context in which Jesus was living and thinking. If you consider it just another failed doomsday prophecy, it all makes a lot more sense.

But I've just never liked the ancient Semitic religions or their issue. And I mean that just aesthetically. And to be frank I find the modern versions almost grotesque. The only good things I can think of to come out of it all are western classical music and the Society of Friends.

 

[James Brown]

It's curious how the Bible is much more clear about other moral activities. Idolatry, blasphemy, creating graven images, gathering firewood on particular days.

You know--victimless crimes.

 

[Politesse]

An inference against which you have no logical, let alone moral, rejoinder.

Well, except that Christianity does not condemn slavery, people who are moral outside of Christianity do.
You seem to be proving the case that Christianity provides no good - the good only comes from people who would be good without it anyway.

Christianity provides no instruction to eschew slavery. Christianity is not a tool to remove slavery or racism. There are good people who try to hold up Christianity as their guidance, but that is only from their personal “interpretation” not from your God’s clarity on the issue.

Simply asserting your point repeatedly is not the same thing as establishing it. Slavery is in contradiction with the very basic teachings of the faith, and this is true unless you can make a serious case for how true, empathetic love and slavery can possibly co-exist with one another.

Your argument also makes no historical sense, as the first abolitionist movements we see evidence for in the historical record were all spurred by religious faith, until quite recently in the grand scheme of things. That said, I do not mind if atheists also wish to condemn slavery, as I think everyone should condemn slavery regardless of their faith. This should not be a religiously partisan matter. If you would like to get involved in the abolitionist movement here in the US, PM me and I can get you hooked up with the network.

 

[Politesse]

It's curious how the Bible is much more clear about other moral activities. Idolatry, blasphemy, creating graven images, gathering firewood on particular days.

You know--victimless crimes.

Making yourself god over another person is idolatry, and blasphemy, all at one go.

 

[J842P]

Simply asserting your point repeatedly is not the same thing as establishing it. Slavery is in contradiction with the very basic teachings of the faith, and this is true unless you can make a serious case for how true, empathetic love and slavery can possibly co-exist with one another.

I think that people simply reject that true, empathetic love is the basic teaching of the faith.

 

[Politesse]

Simply asserting your point repeatedly is not the same thing as establishing it. Slavery is in contradiction with the very basic teachings of the faith, and this is true unless you can make a serious case for how true, empathetic love and slavery can possibly co-exist with one another.

I think that people simply reject that true, empathetic love is the basic teaching of the faith.

Despite that being what Jesus says to be its second most important commandment, quite clearly, as quoted above.

If it isn't, it should be.

 

[ruby sparks]

...unless you can make a serious case for how true, empathetic love and slavery can possibly co-exist with one another.

How about a case for how the chief elf's true love can co-exist with eternal punishment?

So let's see, no condemnation of slavery, but endorsement of eternal punishment. Hm. Sounds lovely.

 

[J842P]

Simply asserting your point repeatedly is not the same thing as establishing it. Slavery is in contradiction with the very basic teachings of the faith, and this is true unless you can make a serious case for how true, empathetic love and slavery can possibly co-exist with one another.

I think that people simply reject that true, empathetic love is the basic teaching of the faith.

Despite that being what Jesus says to be its second most important commandment, quite clearly, as quoted above.

If it isn't, it should be.

Jesus says a lot of things. Again, you seem to be taking for granted that this all must make sense. When I read the gospels, it wasn't obvious to me at all the Jesus had some sort of universal message about all of human kind. It seemed that he was talking specifically to people around him, in a very Jewish context, maybe even specifically about his followers. And again, in the context of an impending coming of some new age/kingdom.

 

[ruby sparks]

Despite that being what Jesus says to be its second most important commandment, quite clearly, as quoted above.

If it isn't, it should be.

Jesus says a lot of things. Again, you seem to be taking for granted that this all must make sense. When I read the gospels, it wasn't obvious to me at all the Jesus had some sort of universal message about all of human kind. It seemed that he was talking specifically to people around him, in a very Jewish context, maybe even specifically about his followers. And again, in the context of an impending coming of some new age/kingdom.

That was all pre-Godspell though.

 

[James Brown]

It's curious how the Bible is much more clear about other moral activities. Idolatry, blasphemy, creating graven images, gathering firewood on particular days.

You know--victimless crimes.

Making yourself god over another person is idolatry, and blasphemy, all at one go.

Sure. And Darth Vader "killed" Luke's Skywalker's father. "From a certain point of view."

I think it's a tough case to make that when Moses wrote, "Jehovah said, Thou shalt have no gods before me," that what he really meant was "Don't buy and sell other people." One has to wonder that if blasphemy and slave-trafficking are basically the same thing, then why didn't any biblical author say so.

So how about boiling veal in cow's milk? Is that a metaphor for slavery too? What humanist principle is, "You may beat your slaves but not to death," supposed to represent?

I'm not really interested in swapping clobber verses. I just find it amusing to watch two Christians argue with each other over what God really wants from us. After all, the only thing that all Christians agree on is that the majority of their fellow believers are doing it wrong.

 

[Politesse]

Despite that being what Jesus says to be its second most important commandment, quite clearly, as quoted above.

If it isn't, it should be.

Jesus says a lot of things. Again, you seem to be taking for granted that this all must make sense. When I read the gospels, it wasn't obvious to me at all the Jesus had some sort of universal message about all of human kind. It seemed that he was talking specifically to people around him, in a very Jewish context, maybe even specifically about his followers. And again, in the context of an impending coming of some new age/kingdom.

Then the same is true of the proof texts being used to advocate for slavery in this thread.

If there are two "interpretations", I prefer the one that is not morally repugnant.

 

[Politesse]

I'm not really interested in swapping clobber verses. I just find it amusing to watch two Christians argue with each other over what God really wants from us. After all, the only thing that all Christians agree on is that the majority of their fellow believers are doing it wrong.

I do not find it amusing. Very real, and entirely innocent, human lives are at stake. This is slavery we're talking about. If you can't take it seriously, you shouldn't be in the discussion at all.